Assessing Organizational Legitimacy of Multi Stakeholder Initiatives in the Forest Governance Policy in Indonesia: Insights from the Indonesian National Forestry Council
Abstract
National Forestry Council (DKN) is a multi-stakeholder initiative organization (MSI) that was established as a collaborative forum for parties to contribute to Indonesia's forestry governance policy process. As MSI, DKN aims to become a collaborative forum for forestry stakeholders in the policy-making process. The dilemma between institutional status and the ability of constituent representatives is a factor in the decline of their performance and credibility. This research aims to empirically examine the legitimacy of DKN as an MSI using the input and output legitimacy approach. Using semi-structured interviews, snowball sampling, and triangulation approaches, information regarding organizational dynamics was obtained. Based on our empirical findings, we conclude that DKN satisfies all of the criteria for an institution with relatively high input legitimacy and low output legitimacy. DKN involves many stakeholders affected by forestry policies and is able to cooperate successfully in every decision-making process while preserving the rights of each constituent. In particular, DKN does not meet the criteria for output legitimacy in carrying out its role as an MSI by offering policy-adopted recommendations or suggestions.
References
[1] Adom, R. K. and Simatele, M. D. 2022.The role of stakeholder engagement in sustainable water resource management in South Africa. Natural Resources Forum, 46(4): 410–427. DOI: 10.1111/1477-8947.12264
[2] Arora-Jonsson, S. Brunsson, N. and Hasse, R. 2020. Where Does Competition Come From? The role of organization,” Organ. Theory, 1(1): 263178771988997. DOI: 10.1177/2631787719889977
[3] Baccaro, L. and Mele, V. 2011. For lack of anything better? International organizations and global corporate codes. Public Adm., 89(2): 451–470. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01918.x
[4] Barlow, R. 2022. Deliberation Without Democracy in Multi-stakeholder Initiatives: A Pragmatic Way Forward. J. Bus. Ethics, 181(3): 543–561. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-021-04987-x
[5] Baumann-Pauly, D., Nolan, J., van Heerden, A. and Samway, M. 2017. Industry-Specific Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives That Govern Corporate Human Rights Standards: Legitimacy assessments of the Fair Labor Association and the Global Network Initiative. J. Bus. Ethics, 143(4). DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3076-z
[6] Bettiza, G. and Lewis, D. 2020. Authoritarian Powers and Norm Contestation in the Liberal International Order: Theorizing the Power Politics of Ideas and Identity. J. Glob. Secur. Stud., 5(4): 559–577. DOI:10.1093/jogss/ogz075
[7] Cash, D. et al. 2005. Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making. SSRN Electron. J. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.372280
[8] Craig, R. T. 2022. Introduction: Deliberative Play. Am. Behav. Sci. DOI:10.1177/00027642221093589
[9] Edelenbos, J. and Van Meerkerk, I. 2022. Normative considerations of interactive governance: Effectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy and innovation,” in Handbook on Theories of Governance, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 429–444. DOI: 10.4337/9781800371972.00047
[10] Erman, E. 2022. The boundary problem of democracy: A function-sensitive view. Contemp. Polit. Theory, 21(2): 240–261. DOI: 10.1057/s41296-021-00517-6
[11] Grabs, J. and Garrett, R. D. 2023. Goal-Based Private Sustainability Governance and Its Paradoxes in the Indonesian Palm Oil Sector. J. Bus. Ethics, pp. 1–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05377-1
[12] Kaisa, K.-K. et al. 2017. Analyzing REDD+ as an experiment of transformative climate governance: Insights from Indonesia. Environ. Sci. Policy, 73: 61–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.014
[13] Krott, M. 2005. Forest policy analysis. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-3485-7
[14] Laraswati, D. et al. 2022. Nongovernmental organizations as interest groups and their roles in policy processes: Insights from Indonesian forest and environmental governance. For. Soc., 6(2): 570–589. DOI:10.24259/fs.v6i2.19125
[15] Li, Y., Zhang, F. and Yuan, J. 2019. Research on China’s renewable portfolio standards from the perspective of policy networks. J. Clean. Prod., 222: 986–997 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.090
[16] Liswanti, N. Tamara, A. and Arwida, S. 2023. Trust building in a multi-stakeholder forum in Jambi, Indonesia,” in Responding to Environmental Issues through Adaptive Collaborative Management, Routledge, pp. 56–79. DOI: 10.4324/9781003325932-5
[17] Macq, H. Tancoigne, É. and Strasser, B. J. 2020. From Deliberation to Production: Public Participation in Science and Technology Policies of the European Commission (1998–2019). Minerva, 58(4): 489–512. DOI:10.1007/s11024-020-09405-6
[18] Maring, P. 2022. Conflict transformation and collaboration in developing social forestry in Flores, Indonesia. For. Soc., 6(1): 40–66. DOI: 10.24259/fs.v6i1.1319
[19] Maryudi, A. and Sahide, M. A. K. 2017. Research trend: Power analyses in polycentric and multi-level forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.05.003
[20] Maryudi, A., Nurrochmat, D. R. and Giessen, L. 2018. Research trend: Forest policy and governance – Future analyses in multiple social science disciplines. Forest Policy and Economics. DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2018.02.007
[21] Mena, S. and Palazzo, G. 2012. Input and Output Legitimacy of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives. Bus. Ethics Q., 22(3): 527–556. DOI: 10.5840/beq201222333
[22] Ngatikoh, S., Kumorotomo, W. and Retnandari, N. D. 2020. Transparency in Government: A Review on the Failures of Corruption Prevention in Indonesia. DOI: 10.2991/aebmr.k.200301.010
[23] Niessen, C. 2019. When citizen deliberation enters real politics: how politicians and stakeholders envision the place of a deliberative mini-public in political decision-making. Policy Sci., 52(3): 481–503. DOI:10.1007/s11077-018-09346-8
[24] Otsuka, K. 2022. Co-optation in co-production: Maintaining credibility and legitimacy in transboundary environmental governance in East Asia Rev. Policy Res., 39(6): 771–797. DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12497
[25] Pek, S., Mena, S. and Lyons, B. 2022. The Role of Deliberative Mini-Publics in Improving the Deliberative Capacity of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives. Bus. Ethics Q., 33(1): 1–44. DOI: 10.1017/beq.2022.20
[26] Poppe, A., Leininger, J. and Wolff, J. 2019. Beyond contestation: conceptualizing negotiation in democracy promotion. Democratization, 26: 777–795. DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2019.1568991
[27] Raynor, K. et al. 2022. The Importance of Institutional Capacity and Negotiation Capacity in Affordable Housing Agreements: The Potential for Collective Action in Melbourne, Australia. Housing, Theory Soc., pp. 1–19. DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2022.2116477
[28] Reinecke, J. and Donaghey, J. 2022. Transnational Representation in Global Labour Governance and the Politics of Input Legitimacy. Bus. Ethics Q., 32(3): 438–474. DOI: 10.1017/beq.2021.27
[29] Schuster, D. and Mossig, I. 2022. Power Relations in Multistakeholder Initiatives—A Case Study of the German Initiative on Sustainable Cocoa (GISCO). Sustain., 14(18): 11279. DOI: 10.3390/su141811279
[30] Turnhout, E. et al. 2020. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 42: 15–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009
[31] Valencia, M. M. A. 2022. Principles, Scope, and Limitations of the Methodological Triangulation,” Investig. y Educ. en Enferm., 40(2). DOI: 10.17533/udea.iee.v40n2e03
[32] Van Huijstee, M. 2021. Multistakeholder Initiatives. A Strateg. Guid. Civ. Soc. Organ., pp. 768–768. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4_300111
[33] Willis, R. Curato, N. and Smith, G. 2022. Deliberative democracy and the climate crisis. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 13(2): e759. DOI: 10.1002/wcc.759
[34] Wong, S. 2014. A Power Game of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives. J. Corp. Citizsh., 55: 26–39. DOI:10.9774/gleaf.4700.2014.se.00006
[35] Yami, M., Barletti, J. P. S. and Larson, A. M. 2021. Can multi-stakeholder forums influence good governance in communal forest management? Lessons from two case studies in Ethiopia. Int. For. Rev., 23(1): 24–42. DOI: 10.1505/146554821833466040
[2] Arora-Jonsson, S. Brunsson, N. and Hasse, R. 2020. Where Does Competition Come From? The role of organization,” Organ. Theory, 1(1): 263178771988997. DOI: 10.1177/2631787719889977
[3] Baccaro, L. and Mele, V. 2011. For lack of anything better? International organizations and global corporate codes. Public Adm., 89(2): 451–470. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01918.x
[4] Barlow, R. 2022. Deliberation Without Democracy in Multi-stakeholder Initiatives: A Pragmatic Way Forward. J. Bus. Ethics, 181(3): 543–561. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-021-04987-x
[5] Baumann-Pauly, D., Nolan, J., van Heerden, A. and Samway, M. 2017. Industry-Specific Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives That Govern Corporate Human Rights Standards: Legitimacy assessments of the Fair Labor Association and the Global Network Initiative. J. Bus. Ethics, 143(4). DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3076-z
[6] Bettiza, G. and Lewis, D. 2020. Authoritarian Powers and Norm Contestation in the Liberal International Order: Theorizing the Power Politics of Ideas and Identity. J. Glob. Secur. Stud., 5(4): 559–577. DOI:10.1093/jogss/ogz075
[7] Cash, D. et al. 2005. Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making. SSRN Electron. J. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.372280
[8] Craig, R. T. 2022. Introduction: Deliberative Play. Am. Behav. Sci. DOI:10.1177/00027642221093589
[9] Edelenbos, J. and Van Meerkerk, I. 2022. Normative considerations of interactive governance: Effectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy and innovation,” in Handbook on Theories of Governance, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 429–444. DOI: 10.4337/9781800371972.00047
[10] Erman, E. 2022. The boundary problem of democracy: A function-sensitive view. Contemp. Polit. Theory, 21(2): 240–261. DOI: 10.1057/s41296-021-00517-6
[11] Grabs, J. and Garrett, R. D. 2023. Goal-Based Private Sustainability Governance and Its Paradoxes in the Indonesian Palm Oil Sector. J. Bus. Ethics, pp. 1–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05377-1
[12] Kaisa, K.-K. et al. 2017. Analyzing REDD+ as an experiment of transformative climate governance: Insights from Indonesia. Environ. Sci. Policy, 73: 61–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.014
[13] Krott, M. 2005. Forest policy analysis. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-3485-7
[14] Laraswati, D. et al. 2022. Nongovernmental organizations as interest groups and their roles in policy processes: Insights from Indonesian forest and environmental governance. For. Soc., 6(2): 570–589. DOI:10.24259/fs.v6i2.19125
[15] Li, Y., Zhang, F. and Yuan, J. 2019. Research on China’s renewable portfolio standards from the perspective of policy networks. J. Clean. Prod., 222: 986–997 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.090
[16] Liswanti, N. Tamara, A. and Arwida, S. 2023. Trust building in a multi-stakeholder forum in Jambi, Indonesia,” in Responding to Environmental Issues through Adaptive Collaborative Management, Routledge, pp. 56–79. DOI: 10.4324/9781003325932-5
[17] Macq, H. Tancoigne, É. and Strasser, B. J. 2020. From Deliberation to Production: Public Participation in Science and Technology Policies of the European Commission (1998–2019). Minerva, 58(4): 489–512. DOI:10.1007/s11024-020-09405-6
[18] Maring, P. 2022. Conflict transformation and collaboration in developing social forestry in Flores, Indonesia. For. Soc., 6(1): 40–66. DOI: 10.24259/fs.v6i1.1319
[19] Maryudi, A. and Sahide, M. A. K. 2017. Research trend: Power analyses in polycentric and multi-level forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.05.003
[20] Maryudi, A., Nurrochmat, D. R. and Giessen, L. 2018. Research trend: Forest policy and governance – Future analyses in multiple social science disciplines. Forest Policy and Economics. DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2018.02.007
[21] Mena, S. and Palazzo, G. 2012. Input and Output Legitimacy of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives. Bus. Ethics Q., 22(3): 527–556. DOI: 10.5840/beq201222333
[22] Ngatikoh, S., Kumorotomo, W. and Retnandari, N. D. 2020. Transparency in Government: A Review on the Failures of Corruption Prevention in Indonesia. DOI: 10.2991/aebmr.k.200301.010
[23] Niessen, C. 2019. When citizen deliberation enters real politics: how politicians and stakeholders envision the place of a deliberative mini-public in political decision-making. Policy Sci., 52(3): 481–503. DOI:10.1007/s11077-018-09346-8
[24] Otsuka, K. 2022. Co-optation in co-production: Maintaining credibility and legitimacy in transboundary environmental governance in East Asia Rev. Policy Res., 39(6): 771–797. DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12497
[25] Pek, S., Mena, S. and Lyons, B. 2022. The Role of Deliberative Mini-Publics in Improving the Deliberative Capacity of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives. Bus. Ethics Q., 33(1): 1–44. DOI: 10.1017/beq.2022.20
[26] Poppe, A., Leininger, J. and Wolff, J. 2019. Beyond contestation: conceptualizing negotiation in democracy promotion. Democratization, 26: 777–795. DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2019.1568991
[27] Raynor, K. et al. 2022. The Importance of Institutional Capacity and Negotiation Capacity in Affordable Housing Agreements: The Potential for Collective Action in Melbourne, Australia. Housing, Theory Soc., pp. 1–19. DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2022.2116477
[28] Reinecke, J. and Donaghey, J. 2022. Transnational Representation in Global Labour Governance and the Politics of Input Legitimacy. Bus. Ethics Q., 32(3): 438–474. DOI: 10.1017/beq.2021.27
[29] Schuster, D. and Mossig, I. 2022. Power Relations in Multistakeholder Initiatives—A Case Study of the German Initiative on Sustainable Cocoa (GISCO). Sustain., 14(18): 11279. DOI: 10.3390/su141811279
[30] Turnhout, E. et al. 2020. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 42: 15–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009
[31] Valencia, M. M. A. 2022. Principles, Scope, and Limitations of the Methodological Triangulation,” Investig. y Educ. en Enferm., 40(2). DOI: 10.17533/udea.iee.v40n2e03
[32] Van Huijstee, M. 2021. Multistakeholder Initiatives. A Strateg. Guid. Civ. Soc. Organ., pp. 768–768. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4_300111
[33] Willis, R. Curato, N. and Smith, G. 2022. Deliberative democracy and the climate crisis. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 13(2): e759. DOI: 10.1002/wcc.759
[34] Wong, S. 2014. A Power Game of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives. J. Corp. Citizsh., 55: 26–39. DOI:10.9774/gleaf.4700.2014.se.00006
[35] Yami, M., Barletti, J. P. S. and Larson, A. M. 2021. Can multi-stakeholder forums influence good governance in communal forest management? Lessons from two case studies in Ethiopia. Int. For. Rev., 23(1): 24–42. DOI: 10.1505/146554821833466040
Published
2023-06-02
How to Cite
MUTTAQIN, Tatag; DHARMAWAN, Budi.
Assessing Organizational Legitimacy of Multi Stakeholder Initiatives in the Forest Governance Policy in Indonesia: Insights from the Indonesian National Forestry Council.
Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, [S.l.], v. 14, n. 3, p. 716 - 728, june 2023.
ISSN 2068-7729.
Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/jemt/article/view/7799>. Date accessed: 20 apr. 2024.
doi: https://doi.org/10.14505/jemt.14.3(67).11.
Section
Article
Copyright© 2023 The Author(s). Published by ASERS Publishing 2023. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of CC-BY 4.0 license.